Obama's Nuclear Moment

The president has so far done little to back up his rhetoric on atomic weapons. The next few months may be the best chance he'll ever get.

BY DAVID E. HOFFMAN | FEBRUARY 23, 2010

Headline reads: “Soviet Proposal: On a program for the full global liquidation of nuclear weapons by the year 2000.” Source: Hoover Institution and Archives, Stanford University.

In researching The Dead Hand, my book about the end of the Cold War arms race, I came across a memo that was drawn up to illustrate a global nuclear disarmament plan announced by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on Jan. 15, 1986. Gorbachev's three-phase plan called for liquidation of all nuclear weapons in the world by the year 2000.

The plan was dreamy and propagandistic, but it immediately caught the attention of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. When Secretary of State George Shultz went to discuss it with his boss, Reagan turned to Shultz and asked, "Why wait until the end of the century for a world without nuclear weapons?"

More than 24 years after Gorbachev's proposal, 18 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and 10 years beyond the deadline Gorbachev proposed for global zero, there are still 23,000 nuclear weapons remaining in the world.

Now President Barack Obama has a chance to make real headway in finally ending the Cold War arms race. So far, his rhetoric has been lofty, but actions few. In the next few months his promises and speeches will be tested by a series of key events and decisions. The Nuclear Posture Review, the first since 2001 and the third since the end of the Cold War, is to be sent to Congress soon; a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is nearing completion with Russia; a nuclear materials security summit is to be held in Washington in April; a new push is to be made for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and there's a review conference for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in May. And that's just what's on the calendar; there's no telling what unexpected nuclear proliferation and security challenges will arise from Iran, North Korea, South Asia, or elsewhere.

Obama's presidency has reached the point where his great ambitions -- articulated in his campaign, and a speech last year in Prague -- must be followed by bold actions. If Obama wants to really slash nuclear arsenals, he'll have to go well beyond the much-anticipated new START treaty, which appears to be just another incremental reduction, not a deep cut .

The status quo is not good enough. In the years since the Soviet collapse, we've been wandering in a Cold War fog, a mindset that someday we might need all those nuclear warheads, so let's keep them. The temptation is always to leave things as they are, or make only small changes on the margins.

 SUBJECTS:
 

David E. Hoffman is a contributing editor to the Washington Post and the author of The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy.

DEPETRIS@WORDPRESS.COM

10:10 PM ET

February 23, 2010

Precedent...U.S draws down, others will follow

The disturbing number of nuclear weapons in the world today could very well be a reason why so many states in the developing world are interested in nuclear technology. In fact, Iran is a great case-study for this assumption. While nationalism is certainly behind Tehran's quest for a nuclear capability, the old-fashioned principle of deterrence is probably part of the formula. With a nuclear United States scattered across the entire region- and with American troops on its western and eastern flanks- don't be surprised if the Iranian Government perceives a nuclear deterrent as its own saving-grace from a potential attack.

A similar logic can be used to explain Syria's interest in plutonium enrichment, which only increased after Israel encroached Syrian territory and bombed a suspected nuclear installation in 2007. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is also reportedly interested in building nuclear sites, which would give him a competitive advantage over other countries in South America. And of course, we cannot forget about Israel's nuclear-weapons stockpile, which only gives Iran more incentive to develop its own program in response.

The point is that the U.S. and Russian arsenals could be responsible for nuclear proliferation in the 21st century. It's really hard to achieve "a world without nuclear weapons" when the United States retains over 2,000 warheads on hair-trigger alert (not to mention Russia's overwhelming force). We expect countries to take concrete steps in eliminating nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. and Russia continue to stall, making changes and signing agreements that are much more symbolic than transformational.

So when President Obama gears up for the nuclear summit in April, he should explain how easier nonproliferation would be if the world's nuclear powers practiced what they preached. A nuclear-free U.S and a nuclear-free Russia could potentially persuade other states- like Iran, Syria, and North Korea- from trying to acquire WMD.

The United States established a precedent immediately after World War II, which labeled nuclear weapons as a destructive, yet influential, force in world politics. Nuclear powers rapidly increased as a result. Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to reverse the trend.

-Dan DePetris

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

 

ANNIESH

12:53 PM ET

February 25, 2010

My question is

My question is "why use nuclear weapons" ? We know that they are harmful for us. They should be banned in the world. They should not be produced even. This will maintain peace.
Ylod